I will not be Sharptoned

Sometimes it is positive to have a noun become a verb. When somebody at work is told to Fedex, Xerox, or Google something, it is a validation of the success of these firms. Becoming a verb puts them into the lexicon of American culture forever.

Sometimes turning someone into a verb is meant as an insult. In our political culture, the trendy way of claiming one is being attacked is to say that they are “Swift-boated.”

Yes, liberals love to get self righteous and indignant over the Swift Boat Veterans. One reason for this is because liberals get self righteous and indignant over everything. Nevertheless, the Swift Boats Veterans get considerable scorn.

Before going any further, it is important to dispel some myths about the SBVs.

The SBVs were not republicans. The most notable SBV, John O’Neill, was a lifelong democrat. Their gripe with John Kerry was not political. It was personal. They hated his guts. I personally find it troubling when anybody bases their campaign on hatred of another, whether it be the SBVs or Ross Perot. Nevertheless, this was not a right wing conspiracy.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the democrats are now officially the Sorosites. The entire party has been bought lock, stock, and barrel by one meglomaniacal financial criminal, George Soros. He spent millions. The SBVs spent thousands. More people believed them.

Lastly. it was John Kerry that made Vietnam an issue in the 2004 campaign, not his opponents. It was John Kerry that attacked the patriotism of George W. Bush, not the other way around. It was John Kerry that dismissed George W. Bush’s service in the National Guard. It was John Kerry, through his campaign staff, in careful coordination with Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, and the Jayson Blair Times, that tried to use “fake but accurate” memos to steal an election.

Nevertheless, to Swiftboat somebody now refers to any situation where a conservative criticizes or disagrees with a liberal. Question why Barack Obama would associate with a hatemonger like Jeremiah Wright or a terrorist like William Ayers, and the response is that he will not be Swiftboated.

Barack Obama’s people keep insisting that this election must be about health care and the economy. These are areas where the democrats are strong. I can only imagine the outcry if republicans were told that the only allowable issues were crime and welfare.

Mr. Obama’s wife makes ill conceived and venomous statements, and those that criticize her are attacking a poor innocent man’s wife. The reason why nobody criticized Laura Bush is because she behaved herself. A woman can be strong and independent without being off putting and obnoxious.

It is not that republicans try to Swiftboat democrats. It is that liberals and left leaning democrats feel the need to Sharpton anybody that disagrees with them.

Al Sharpton was once a large man, and nothing more. He is now a larger than life verb. If he was caucasian, he would simply be called a racist. Since he is black, even his critics use softer words, like agitator. Others still call him a Civil Rights leader, as if being a racist and a thug qualifies one for a Nobel Peace Prize. Actually, Yassir Arafat won, so I guess it does.

http://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/08/al-sharpton-colon-cancer-and-other-pains-in-the-rumpus/

Al Sharpton makes Al Gore and Hillary Clinton look like people of integrity (barely). From Tawana Brawley and Steven Pagones to antisemitic remarks that led to Jewish stores being burned, Al Sharpton has trafficked in hate speech.

It was bad enough when this boil on the rumpus of decency was outside of the mainstream. It is now appalling that the democratic party has become a full time group of splicers. By Sharptoning people, liberals attempt to silence all debate. This is what the 2008 election is now about.

Hillary Clinton has made it clear that sexism doomed her campaign. The fact that she is a lying, scheming, soulless, nasty, vicious, spiteful woman could not have possibly had anything to do with her loss. The fact that many people stood up and said that they would support a woman, but not her in particular, was deemed irrelevant.

Hillary’s constituency is basically hags and harpies. For those wanting to know the difference between a hag and a harpie, it is subtle. The bottom line is a dirty little secret that many women privately admit but publicly disavow…that they are the far more disliked sex for good reason. Men have issues with women, and women have issues with women. Everybody has issues with women.

Some women go out of their way to say things like, “I am a woman, but I am not a feminist. I am not one of those women. I do not nag. Watch your ball game. Treat me with respect, and I will do likewise.”

My grandmothers were not hags. My mother did not nag. My girlfriend is not a basket case crying victimhood. Plenty of normal women exist. Hillary prefers the low road of blame. Nothing is ever her fault. She wants to lob verbal grenades indicting anybody who dares to disagree with her, and then play the sexism victim card when those being attacked dare to defend themselves.

She Sharptons people, and thankfully, people are finally seeing through that.

Barack Obama’s people are starting to Sharpton people, despite the fact that Obama himself claims to want to move past that. He made a powerful statement the other day. He said, “If I lose this election, it will not because of racism. It will be because I did not articulate my ideas effectively enough.”

I give Mr. Obama all the credit in the world for that statement. My only concern is that he is simply going to let his surrogates to the racial dirty work of Sharptoning John McCain. Obama will say that he cannot be held responsible for what his supporters say and do, but if there is tacit encouragement, it must be exposed.

Liberals will claim that racism will prevent Obama from winning the election. This is a preemptive strike that creates a disgusting narrative about America. Obama must win, because otherwise, America is racist.

If John McCain wins, does that make America racist? Does that make McCain’s supporters racists?

Yes, if one is a liberal looking for excuses.

I will not be Sharptoned. I will repeatedly state my views and beliefs, and let the chips fall where they may.

I think Barack Obama is a good, decent man. I simply disagree with him on issues that matter most to me.

Obama is wrong on taxes. He wants to raise them, and I want to lower them.

Obama is wrong on trade. I want as many new free trade deals as possible, especially with Latin American Nations such as Peru and Colombia. Protectionism is simply bad policy in a global world.

Obama is wrong on guns and the Second Amendment. More gun control is bad policy. One can argue the constitutional aspects of it, but what is not arguable is that areas with tougher gun control laws have more crime.

Obama is wrong on Israel. He says the right platitudes, but he genuinely does not understand the issue of Israel, or the depth of the hatred the Arabs feel for Israel. This does not make him a bad guy. It just makes him unsophisticated on the issue.

All of these issues are policy. They are not personal.

Some liberals will point to the fact that West Virginia and Kentucky went overwhelmingly against Obama. Some statistics say that one in five of them will not vote for him.

Democrats then claim racism. The problem is even if these people are racists, they are democrats!

So democrats hold racist views, and yet republicans are supposedly racists. Robert Byrd is a former Klansman, yet the late Lee Atwater is blamed for every republican ill gotten victory in the last 20 years.

When asked if they would vote for a black person, republicans cite people such as Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Armstrong Williams, Condoleeza Rice (who Obama’s Pastor called “Condoskeeza”), Michael Steele, and many others. The liberals respond by saying that those people are not authentically black. This is racism at its most poisonous.

As much as it pains me to admit, Hillary Clinton is not a man, and John Edwards is not a woman. Therefore, by that same token, Michael Steele is black, and guilty white liberals are by definition white.

To vote against Barack Obama specifically because he is partially black is disgusting. I have repeatedly condemned those that refer to him as “B. Hussein Obama.” It is wrong.

However, it is equally wrong for the man that many Clintonites dubbed “Obambi” to have the audacity of trying to stifle debate.

He does not get to decide what the issues are. He does not have the right to excoriate John McCain on a daily basis, and then claim that we have to move past such behavior when McCain’s supporters defend him. This is what supporters do.

I will not be labeled a bigot because I am voting for a man that happens to be a white male. I will not be Sharptoned because I am voting for a true American hero.

I will not be Sharptoned by people who practice the politics of division because their very political survival and relevance depends on it. I will not be intimidated by people who say that we must come together, and choose liberalism over bigotry.

There is no place for bigotry in American society, and that means choosing the best person for the job of our next President.

I believe in John McCain.

If those that want to disagree on policy want to discuss that, a healthy and vital debate can occur.

For those on the left that want to hurl slurs in an attempt to force people into voting for Barack Obama, lest they be attacked with the stigma of racism, I say “bring it on.”

I respect Barack Obama. I support John McCain.

I will not back down.

I will not use kid gloves when the other side uses a wrecking ball.

I will not be bullied by the worshipers of the tactics of Sharpton the Charlatan.

I will not be Sharptoned.

eric

No Responses to “I will not be Sharptoned”

  1. Cliff says:

    The politics of division? Dear… you’ve been so misled. It’s the GOP who have practiced the politics of division these past 8 years. Read your man Karl Rove’s book. He admits it.

  2. micky says:

    Cliff, ignorance is prevalent on both sides.
    And besides that , if you really want to take a look at the true roots of division/race instead of just the last 8 years you might want to consider who freed the slaves and the belief in individualism that supported it.
    The line that divides is most definatly drawn by the lefts consistant attempts to install an entitlement mentallity on any one who is not just a plain ole white guy.
    Its been that way for decades now.

  3. I’ve got news for you, Sunshines – welcome to the year 2008. The Republicans rose to a majority party (not for long, but just the same…) by absorbing and replacing the southern Dixiecrats and they’re voting base. The Democrats abandoned them, so they went to the GOP. Remember, the Party of Lincoln couldn’t get a vote for 100 years in the south. Now the GOP dominates the South (not for long?).

    If you guys think the Dems were racist in Dixie, just wait for the general election! I wonder how many white women will be winking at Obama on the TV…

    JMJ

  4. micky says:

    I’ve got news for you, Moonbats – welcome to the year 2008.

    You guys propell race to the front of every issue as often as you can.
    Without it you would not be able to give any creedance to all the entitlements and crap you want to give away that doesnt belong to you.

  5. micky says:

    When I used to sell cars what I would do upon meeting the customer was to mention something political in order to find out which side of the isle they were on.
    If they were liberal I would convince them that they deserved the car for a number of reasons that involved all the unjust things that have happened to them. I made them the deserving victim.
    If they were conservatives I would go into the economic viability of their choice and how safe the car was for their family. If was an american car it was all that much easier.
    I didnt stay in the business for 3 years because I wasnt selling cars.

  6. J.Rock says:

    The tactic you refer to is called “poisoning the well of discourse” and is an age-old fallacy of logic. It works well in politics because many people will allow their emotion-based partisan hatreds to cloud their critical thinking skills.

    If Obama loses, it’s because the country is racist. Even though that does not stand up to valid deductive or even inductive reasoning, many Obama supporters will believe it because they have real, deep-seated fears about racism and such a statement appeals to those emotions.

    Oh but the fun continues. Once the discourse is dragged down to that “emotional” level, logic and reasoning no longer work. In fact, “rationality” itself is then described as an oppressive tool. In other words, the attempt to offer constructive arguments that something OTHER than racism led to his defeat would inherently be viewed ITSELF as promoting racial hatred. Yep, there’s arsenic in our drinking water now.

    When shining a light on this, it’s sort of entertaining to watch the aftermath. Some of the weaker-minded will scurry and, feeling threatened, try to change the subject by bringing up Republicans, Hitler, the Spanish Inquisition, or some other unpopular enemy so as to rally support amongst their sympathizers and weasle out of a critical examination. Either that, or they will start giving a sob story about a personal plight in their lives so that we’re distracted from the real issues by their case of “victimhood.”

    History provides us with plenty of examples… Nebuchadnezzar in biblical times, the regicide perpetrators during the fall of Charles I, guests on the Jerry Springer Show, etc. So Sharpton is in great company.

    Until recently, it seemed that Sharpton’s style of demogoguery worked only on those committed to his “cause.” But now, I wonder if his methods are becoming more socially acceptable. Afterall, if we live in political times when the word “marriage” can so easily be redefined, couldn’t Sharpton and his ilk redefine what “bigot” means to include anyone, no matter how reasonable, that dares oppose them?

  7. parrothead says:

    Cliff,

    First of all the “politics of division long predates Karl Rove or George Bush.” Have you forgotten the James Byrd adds ran against him the first time he ran. Have you forgotten that many democrats still refuse to admit he was elected in 2000 and for several months they referred to him as President Selected vice President elect. That is pretty divisive. Have you forgotten the adds saying if you elect republicans more black churches will burn. I won’t even go into the over the top things said by Diane Watson and Maxien waters about Ward Connerly and Clarence Thomas. Karl Rove is a pussy cat when it comes to the real king of slash and burn politics, James Carville. Dick Morris is also a master of it and he has worked for both Republicans and Democrats.

    The Clintons were masters of it. That is part of the reason George Bush successfully ran as a “uniter not a divider.” Of course when he got to Washington he got a rude awakening and discovered that was not going to work. It is hard to work with people who will not acknowledge the legitimacy of your presidency. In spite of that he was able to work with Ted Kennedy to pass an education bill.

  8. JRock, “If Obama loses, it’s because the country is racist.” No reasonabvly educated person would assert such a simplistic assessment. No liberal I know is dumb enough to think that way. It would not be because “the country is racist,” but that there are more whites (and latinos) that would vote against Obama because he is black then there are blacks and whites (and latinos) who would vote for him because he is black. It’s not so much about racism than it is about race itself. I’m not a big fan of Obama’s, but not because he’s black, but rather because he’s not liberal and progressive enough for me. I’m not a big fan of the Democrats in this case because they were stupid enough to throw an election, believing that America was ready for a black man or a woman with negatives through the roof.

    On the other hand, when all is said and done, we may be better off with a split government from ’09-‘2012. I’m still on the fence with this, but for a while I was convinced that we needed a sort of reverse – from all GOP to all Dem – in order to repair the damage of the last one-party state. Now, I’m coming to think that split government may well be what the country needs. McCain, whom I personally consider a little nuts, could end up being a good president like Clinton. Back in ’92, I was convinced Clinton was a sleazy technocrat, but in the end he turned out pretty well, even by my liberal and progressive standards. On the other hand, he was no FDR, not by a million miles.

    JMJ

  9. “JRock, “If Obama loses, it’s because the country is racist.” No reasonabvly educated person would assert such a simplistic assessment.”

    Oh, by the way, I just reread that. I did read your post and know that you were not making that statement from the first person! 😉

    JMJ

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.